Morrison v. Muise, 2010 NSSC 163

• Judge: Edwards, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2010 NSSC 163;(2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 68 (SC)

Morrison v. Muise (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 68 (SC);

    922 A.P.R. 68

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.043

Beatrice Morrison (plaintiff) v. Mary M. Muise (defendant)

(PtH No. 249924; 2010 NSSC 163)

Indexed As: Morrison v. Muise

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Edwards, J.

April 14, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action claiming title by adverse possession to a portion of the defendant's property. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant brought a nonsuit motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that there was no evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find for the plaintiff (rule 51.06).

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the nonsuit motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. There was no evidence upon which a jury could find that the plaintiff or her predecessors in title had occupied the disputed property for more than a continuous 20 year period.

Practice - Topic 5390

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Nonsuit - At close of plaintiff's case - Evidence and proof - Rule 51.06 provided for dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on a nonsuit motion where "there is no evidence on which a properly instructed jury could find for the plaintiff" - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that "although the threshold for a plaintiff in establishing a prima facie case is low, evidence upon which an alleged prima facie case is based must be sufficient to generate a reasonable prospect of success. In other words, it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that some evidence has been elicited on a necessary element of their case without also satisfying the court that said evidence is probatively sufficient in the context of the legal framework of each cause of action alleged. ... evidence which is 'not appreciable' or which is 'so minimal as to have no affect in law' does not rise to the level of prima facie evidence when considering a nonsuit motion" - See paragraphs 4 to 11.

Real Property - Topic 5720

Title - Extinguishment of title - Prescription and adverse possession - Continuity of possession - Interruption of continuity - General - The plaintiff brought an action claiming title by adverse possession to a portion of the defendant's property - The property was undeveloped woodland - At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant brought a nonsuit motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that there was no evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find for the plaintiff (rule 51.06) - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the nonsuit motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim - The plaintiff had the burden of proving that she, or her predecessors in title, "openly, continuously and exclusively possessed" the disputed property for a continuous 20 year period - The court stated that "exclusive possession typically requires inconsistent use of the property which is adverse to the true owner's intended use. Acts which do not interfere with and are not inconsistent with the owner's enjoyment of the land for the purposes for which he intended to use it are not evidence of dispossession" - The plaintiff's evidence established possession that was "equivocal, occasional or for a special or temporary purpose", but no acts of continuous possession for the required 20 year period - For each 20 year period relied on, there existed gaps of non-possession that interrupted the required continuity - See paragraphs 12 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

Wentzell v. Spidle (1987), 81 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 203 A.P.R. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

MacDonell v. M & M Developments Ltd. et al. (1998), 165 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 495 A.P.R. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Petten et al. v. E.Y.E. Marine Consultants et al. (1995), 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 351; 408 A.P.R. 351 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Cowie (J.W.) Engineering Ltd. v. Allen, Smith, Keeping (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 106 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Filgueira v. Garfield Container Transport Inc. (2006), 294 F.T.R. 286 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Spicer et al. v. Bowater Mersey Paper Co. (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 701 A.P.R. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Palmer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., [1988] N.S.J. No. 536 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Board of Trustees of Common Lands v. Tanner et al. (2005), 236 N.S.R.(2d) 295; 749 A.P.R. 295 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Dauphinee et al. v. Fralick Estate et al. (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 238; 692 A.P.R. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Conrad v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (1994), 136 N.S.R.(2d) 170; 388 A.P.R. 170 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Teis v. Ancaster (Town) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 4; 35 O.R.(3d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Tobias et al. v. Nolan (1985), 71 N.S.R.(2d) 92; 171 A.P.R. 92 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Ezbeidy v. Phalen, [1957] N.S.J. No. 12 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Lynch et al. v. Lynch et al. (1985), 71 N.S.R.(2d) 69; 171 A.P.R. 69 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Scheinfeldt v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 194 N.S.R.(2d) 9; 606 A.P.R. 9 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Muise v. Sampson (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 335; 553 A.P.R. 335; 1999 NSCA 125, refd to. [para. 42].

Taylor v. Willigar (1979), 32 N.S.R.(2d) 11; 54 A.P.R. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Bellefontaine v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (1992), 114 N.S.R.(2d) 202; 313 A.P.R. 202 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Pipes v. Maskell (1992), 114 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 313 A.P.R. 271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Mason v. Mason Estate et al. (1999), 176 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 538 A.P.R. 321; 1999 CanLII 2804 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anger and Honsberger, The Law of Real Property (3rd Ed. 2006) (Looseleaf), pp. 29-12 [para. 29]; 29-16, 29-17 [para. 13]; 29-19 [para. 26]; 29-22 [para. 30]; 29-24.1 [para. 17].

Cross on Evidence (4th Ed. 1974), p. 66 [para. 9].

MacIntosh, Charles W., Nova Scotia Real Property Practice Manual, pp. 7-7 [paras. 15, 22]; 7-8 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Scott Lytle, for the plaintiff;

W. Harry Thurlow, for the defendant.

This action was heard on April 12-14, 2010, at Port Hawkesbury, N.S., before Edwards, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who rendered a decision orally on April 14, 2010, with written reasons filed on May 18, 2010.